Pam Chadbourne commented on the Citizen’s Guide to Public Meetings. She has been watching council meetings since 2010 and Littleton. In 2014 citizens had an opportunity to schedule up to 10 minutes to address council and unscheduled opportunity for up to four minutes. Then Michael Penny became city manager and the opportunities for the public appearances is gone. The public comment could only happen at either the beginning or end of the meetings for three minutes. This is going in the wrong direction.

Chadbourne showed John Fielder’s new book about some of the best places to be in the state of Colorado and Littleton’s South Platte Park ranked first. Chadbourne would like to preserve the park but she doesn’t see it happening.

Pat Cronenberger commended the council on their decision to go to South Metro.

Tina Witham, a downtown merchant, asked council to amend the Street Closure Ordinance. How many closures are enough? She looked at Cherry Creek and they closed the streets one time a year for the Arts Festival. She knows of three times the streets in downtown are closed and it hurts business. She asked that street closures be limited to Sundays – no more Saturday closures. She had the support of several other business owners in downtown.

Tom Witham told council that “The Big Wonderful” set for the 26thwould hurt their business. Their customers will not be able to get to their parking lot. He asked for a format for approving special events. They need to address the impacts this has on business. One business owner he knows was bullied into signing the approval sheet and was told that if she couldn’t make money with 1,000 people in downtown she did not know how to run a business. He also wants full disclosure – he doesn’t think a lot of business owners know that there will be seven food trucks, two jewelry vendors, and five clothing vendors in direct competition with the downtown merchants.

Consent Agenda Items

a) Resolution 22-2018 – A resolution approving an Intergovernmental Joint Cooperation Agreement and Home Consortium Agreement Between Arapahoe County and City of Littleton Relating to the Conduct of Community Development Block Grant Program and Home Investment Partnerships Program

b) Resolution 23-2018 – A resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement for Collaborative Transportation Forum with City of Aurora, Town of Bennett, Town of Bowmar, City of Centennial, City of Cherry Hills Village, Town of Columbine Valley, Town of Deer Trail, City of Englewood, Town of Foxfield, City of Glendale, City of Greenwood Village, City of Sheridan, and Arapahoe County

c) Resolution 24-2018 – A resolution authorizing the approval of the 2017 Arapahoe County Community Development Block Grant Program Subgrantee Agreement for the Littleton Sidewalk Improvements Program

d) Resolution 25-2018 – A resolution approving a fourth amendment to the agreement for RTD funding of local transportation services

e) ID# 18-168 Attachments – Motion to approve updating the “Protocols and Standards of Conduct”, and adopting the Council’s “Rules of Engagement”

f) ID# 18-155 – Approval of the May 1, 2018 regular meeting minutes

All items passed 7/0.

Ordinances on Second Reading and Public Hearing

21-2018 An ordinance on second reading to amend the Safeway Oakbrook Shopping Center General Planned Development Plan for Lot 7, Block 1

This involves parking auto inventory overnight in a lot belonging to Ford Auto Nation as a permitted use. Planning Commission approved with ten conditions. David from Auto Nation talked about the community process and how they learned that the previous owner did not honor some of the commitments they had with neighbors and the new owner is making good on those commitments.

Pam Chadbourne spoke about how this was a missed opportunity. This is not a good use for the land. There was a time that Littleton wanted to move away from car dealerships on Broadway and this action is more entrenchment. They needed to figure out what higher-level development is. Using a PDO has changed downtown forever. She did commend the Planning Commission for adding the conditions.

Karina Elrod moved and Jerry Valdes seconded. Carol Fey moved to amend the Ordinance by adding language to require appropriate screening with an appropriate number of plantings along Phillips Avenue. Valdes seconded. Peggy Cole amended Fey’s amendment by requiring the plantings be evergreen. Driscoll seconded and motion failed 1/6 with Cole the only Aye vote. Fey’s amendment passed 7/0 and the main motion passed 7/0.

20-2018 – An ordinance on second reading to amend Title 10, Chapter 9, Planned Development Overlay, and Chapter 2, Zone Districts

This action updated the Zoning Code by removing the option for a PDO in any of the city’s residential zones, eliminated the option for a reduction in required parking, and eliminated the option to increase density in the CA district. There was also some clean up language included in the update. Kyle Schlachter moved and Valdes seconded. Karina Elrod offered an amendment for the R-4 District, specifically for townhomes, a minimum lot size of 3,250 square feet and minimum lot frontage of 30 feet, and a new internal setback of zero feet. All other existing applicable zoning standards for townhomes in the R-4 District are the same and do not change. The vote on the amendment is 7-0. Main motion also passed 7/0.

Reports

Steve Kemp provided the council with a write up to citizen comments at the last council meeting.

First – a citizen commented that the council was not prohibited by the Open Meetings Law to respond to citizens that address them at their meetings in public comment. Kemp wrote that if the council responds to a citizen it may lead to legislation or council discussion defeating the Open Meetings Law which provides public notice be given to the public about what will be discussed at the meeting. He prefers council to allow staff to respond or add the item to their agenda.

Second – the subject is the limitation to discussion of an item on first reading. Kemp said it is contrary to the Charter for the discussion of the substance of an ordinance on first reading.

Fey thought the Oakbrook approval was handled very well and the incorporation of the public in the process was lovely.

Brinkman asked for council’s support to bring forward an ordinance to extend the no smoking ban to parks and open space. She said there was no urgency but thought fall would be a good time. In the last six months she has had an excess of over a dozen calls about people being uncomfortable entering and exiting Bemis and this may be a way to manage the concern of the homeless hanging out there. And, it leaves debris on the trails and is a fire danger.

This is the first time the P4 Process has been used. The idea is to allow the applicant to be heard, through staff, about a project before they spend lots of time and money on a project only to be rejected. Staff will speak on their behalf in very basic terms about what they want to develop and allow council to ask questions and respond with the hopes that the applicant will learn of possible concerns and issues. Update: The developer, as a result of the study session, has decided not to build.

The project, as presented by Jocelyn Mills, is a four story elderly congregate care housing facility with 142 units. The big concerns heard expressed by council were parking (plan called for ½ parking spot per buffet unit, 2/3 for a one bedroom unit and 1 space for two or more bedroom units) and the increase in density. The existing PD plan for the parcel would need to be amended by:

Increase the maximum number of residential units in the entire PD from 900 to 905

Parking concerns included the parking issues that already exist in Littleton Village, employees of the congregate care facility – how many will there be and where will they park. Jerry Valdes, who was on the Planning Commission when Littleton Village was approved, was concerned about the incremental increase in density when they worked to get the density down when it was first approved. Carol Fey was concerned about the mass of the building – would 100 units work there? Peggy Cole said she was not happy with the project and said it was important to do what was promised. Brinkman said they needed retail. Pat Driscoll wanted more background.

Parking concerns included the parking issues that already exist in Littleton Village, employees of the congregate care facility – how many will there be and where will they park. Jerry Valdes, who was on the Planning Commission when Littleton Village was approved, was concerned about the incremental increase in density when they worked to get the density down when it was first approved. Carol Fey was concerned about the mass of the building – would 100 units work there? Peggy Cole said she was not happy with the project and said it was important to do what was promised. Brinkman said they needed retail. Pat Driscoll wanted more background.

Cycling Without Age

Brinkman brought this forward. “Cycling Without Age” is an international program started in Denmark to get the elderly outside again in trishaws…..think rickshaw powered by an electric bike. Phil Cernanec and three citizens from Lakewood addressed the council about the program. They have a commitment from South Suburban to house and charge the trishaw(s) in their properties along the Mary Carter Greenway. The idea would be to use the Omnibus to transport the elderly from Senior Housing to the Greenway then return them to their homes after a nice outing along the river. The group was there to ask for $10,000 to buy their first trishaw.

Fey wondered how the council could consider funding a $10,000 trishaw when they were telling citizens that they can’t afford to maintain the roads. Brinkman asked Mark Relph how they could fund the trishaw and he said it was not appropriate to use the Conservation Trust Fund or the Open Space Fund but there was about $9,000,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund that could be used. Kyle Schlachter said he heard what Fey was saying but he loved it from the perspective that it does fit our community values but we need to be sure we are doing the right thing. He wanted to know if the group would be self suffiecient or would they always need money.

Valdes made the point that they did not have their 501(C)(3), no address and no budget. He asked if the Omnibus had time for this to which Relph said it was probably manageable for the first couple of years.

Valdes said budget season is coming and last year they had over 30 requests from non profits for contributions from the city and they can’t fund every group that makes a request. Last year they funded 16 of the 30 requests for $86,000. It is the citizen’s money. He said he would like to see the group come back and apply for the contribution like all the other non profits. He was not comfortable giving an organization involving a former council member (Phil Cernanec) a contribution and they needed to go through the same process as other Littleton non profits.

Driscoll thought $10,000 was a lot of money for a trishaw and asked if they had looked elsewhere. The group said they were required to buy the trishaw from the Denmark group. Driscoll then asked them how much money they had raised. The group was from Lakewood and they had raised $8,000 and one gentleman said he raised $5,000 from his own personal contacts. Driscoll asked about liability and city attorney, Steve Kemp, said he did not see any significant issues.

Peggy Cole asked if they could take contributions from the passengers. It is against the guidelines.

Brinkman said she didn’t have the angst that other council members had. It is an amenity that we could add to Littleton. She said she wanted to put it through the budget process and she disagreed with Valdes about going through the application process. She then asked Relph to include it in the budget. Valdes said no – they need to go through the non-profit process. If they don’t have their 501(C)(3) then they don’t’ get the money. It is a lot of money – come back with an application.

At that point Brinkman cut off the conversation and thanked the group for coming.

Sign Code – Commercial Mascots and Rotating Signs

Staff was looking for clear guidelines and some council members were looking for definitions. There was discussion about what is an electric sign versus an electronic sign, is a barber pole a rotating sign, sign twirlers versus someone standing and holding a sign, and what about a robotic sign. Staff finally said that they heard enough to write a draft to bring back to council for first reading.

City Attorney and City Manager Updates

Relph wants a consistent process to respond to citizen comments. Staff will be preparing responses and get them back to the council. Sometimes all that will be required is a phone call to the citizen by staff. Karina Elrod said she appreciated the effort and thought it was a courtesy to respond to citizens.

Pat Dunahay asked for the city’s help with the signage code. He represents the South Park Business District and some of the business owners would like to place signage on the corner or some sort of way finding signs installed.

Andrew Ehrnstein and is son Isaac spoke to the council about what make a good flag. Isaac had designed a flag for Littleton using colors from the state flag that depicts a spur for our western heritage, the South Platte River for its importance to Littleton and our history and a train wheel representing light rail coming to Littleton in 1997.

Pam Chadbourne was upset and appalled at council’s lack of a balanced look at the homeless at the last council study session. Council should always have a complete picture of an issue and an integrated approach to subjects. For the homeless discussion she suggested council invite the homeless in to participate. She also mentioned the many organizations that provide services for the homeless but they were not mentioned.

Kent Bagley told council that protocols and standards of conduct were a critical for the organization.

Kay Watson commented on Debbie Brinkman maintaining order in council meetings. People needed to look at the good things council is doing and they need to work together.

Consent Agenda Items

a) Ordinance 16-2018 – An ordinance on first reading deleting Title 4, Section 3 from the Building Regulations of the Municipal Code regarding sign code regulation and adding Title 10, Section 17 to the Zoning Code of the Municipal Code regarding sign code regulation

b) Ordinance 17-2018 –n an ordinance on first reading repealing Sections 3-3-1 to 3-3-7, pertaining to circuses and carnivals; and adding new Chapter 3 pertaining to establishing the standards for the issuance of a permit for special events and demonstrations in the city

c) ID# 18-128 – Approval of the April 3, 2018 regular meeting minutes

Consent Agenda passed 7/0

General Business

a) Ordinance 13-2018 – An ordinance on second reading regarding the proposed Pre-Inclusion Agreement with South Metro Fire Rescue for fire and emergency medical services commencing January 1, 2019

Mark Relph said the fire issue has been wrestled with for decades and the partnership has been difficult to sustain. The Master Plan is not within the financial reach of the partnership and now the partnership is gone. It was important for staff to have an answer my June. Was the city diligent in negotiating with South Metro (SM)? Many were involved for many months and they could add more details to the agreement if there was more time. South Metro has tried to be consistent in their contracts with the partners but we are different – we are a city and not a district. We have a deeper responsibility as the administration of the fire department – this is the cost and we are in a weak negotiating position. Changes to the agreement are limited. If we move to SM we won’t be spending the costs to provided fire services and we can devote a portion of the $7 million to a dedicated purpose for street maintenance. We wanted citizens to see our commitment to street maintenance.

Attorney Steve Kemp spoke about the inclusion election, which is a SK election – not the city’s. If the city were included we would turn over all of our assets to SM with the exception of Station 11, which is located at the city center. There could be a better location for this station in the future. According to the C.R.S any boundary change for SM would have to be filed wit the Court no later than July 1stand that deadline is past so the increase in property taxes for inclusion would not happen until January 2020.

Finance Director, Tiffany Hooten, said inclusion would net out to be a 4.588 mills increase. Having to pay for services for the first year would result in using about $1.4 million from the reserves and this is not sustainable for more than 2 or 3 years.

Relph said he recommends approval – the timing is critical for the transition to take place. This is our only option that provides a level of service for the money. This is a long-term solution that is financially and operationally viable and redirects some money from the General Fund to street maintenance.

Public Hearing

Mark Rogers – In favor

Joel Heinman – President of the Fire Union said they are proud of their fire history and the process has been difficult. The heart of a fire fighter is service to the community. He believes the move to SM will improve service greatly. The increased resources will increase safety for everyone.

Doug Clark said the move is not an increase in service. There are organizational differences that make delivery of services worse. Paramedics perform advanced life support (ALS). Littleton has a paramedic on each fire truck and can perform ALS with the arrival of the first truck. SM does not have a paramedic on each truck and 60% of the calls are medical emergencies. He displayed a chart of info that came from the fire department showing that only 2% of the calls are for fire and 90% of those fires are contained by the time the trucks arrive showing the importance of having ALS on each truck

Paul Bingham said he knows this is going to happen but suggested that the Agreement needs more work as there were some serious flaws. He also appreciated the work of the city manager on this.

??? – favored the unification. (Sorry just didn’t catch the name.)

Don & Cheryl Bruns said the city was backed into a corner. He wondered why anyone would allow the transfer of our assets without payment and asked for council to include an equitable return for the assets as well as performance standards in the Agreement.

Chris Keely – full support.

Patrick Fitzgerald congratulated the council – it is full steam ahead in giving the fire union the results they bought and paid for. The first council meeting after the election council decided not to consider any option other than SM.

Linda Knufinke said the Agreement is one-sided and flawed and also asked for a fair and equitable agreement. She thought the public had been cut out of the decision and did not appreciate SM holding election after election until the voters say yes. This is an assault on democracy. She thought there should be spending limits on the election and “education” costs. She also wanted to see measurable standards in the contract so their performance could be measured.

Bill Brown had a couple of questions regarding the ballot question. He thought the condition of reducing the mill levy needed to have the word hereafter included after the year 2020. What is the value of the assets being granted to SM District? And, in the future, will Littleton be evaluating salary levels of employees as smaller communities usually pay less because the jobs are smaller.

Richard Champion – Columbine Valley – full support.

Bill Hopping said we were forced to do this – there were no options. He thought it was a detriment to the city not to be able to meet behind closed doors in an executive session. All SM had to do was tune in and watch council meetings to learn their position. (Mr. Kemp and Mr. Relph said numerous times that there was no negotiation – SM said take it or leave it.)

Pam Chadbourne said this is the first time we have seen what the taxpayer will have to pay and that information should have been provided much earlier. She did not believe that the stand-alone option was out of reach Why not try for 2 years. Why can’t we negotiate for ALS? The contract needs to be amended – it is not in the best interest of the city.

Kay Watson – to the firemen: you have our back and we have yours – in full support.

Frank Atwood – Littleton interests over special interests, elected people are beholden to residents and not donors. He expressed confidence that they would represent the best interests of citizens and will amend the agreement if needed.

Joe Rice – representing Lockheed Martin was in favor.

Kal Murib representing the Littleton Business Chamber expressed their support.

Gloria Shone – Two weeks ago, our mayor stated that this vote only placed the fire merger issue on the ballot so the citizens could decide. If only that were true! The ballot issue only decides how & by whom the increased fire costs will be paid. True, it’s the largest proposed property tax increase in Littleton history but only a small part of what you will vote on tonight.

The greater issue – whether or not to irrevocably dismantle Littleton’s fire department, give South Metro Fire all of our fire assets – equipment, property & land – & contract with South Metro for Littleton’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services – will be decided by the 7 of you..

She expressed her concern about Littleton taking on a long term contract that is economically unsustainable. The contract has no escape clause leaving Littleton without protection of being able to resume fire services if needed in the future. She wondered why performance standards & metrics were not included in the contract. Littleton’s City Charter specifies it is to maintain a fire department, complete with a fire chief & all the other trimmings.

This public hearing, the first time you are hearing formal input from your citizens, comes at the very end of the process, the very evening you plan cast a final vote. She told council that they empowered to amend the proposal before them or they could postpone a final vote.

Carol Brzeczek asked council to amend the Agreement that would allow Littleton to keep their fire assets if they terminated the agreement. She wondered if SM might involve LIFT into their litigation against the Parker Urban Renewal Authority. She also told council that the Agreement was in violation of the city code that required Littleton to have a fire department and a fire chief.

Susan Thornton said we are here because previous councils have not treated the fire fighters nicely.

Chris Doud – full support

Stew Meagher – full support

Pat Driscoll began the council discussion by asking Chief Armstrong about running a paramedic on all calls. Armstrong said SM uses a different model than Littleton and they are working through a staffing plan and they don’t know what it will look like in Littleton. Station 19 only has an engine – we won’t see a paramedic on each engine as we do now. Driscoll also wanted to know if the 2% of all calls were for fire was accurate. Chief, in a convoluted way said that was pretty much the national standard.

Jerry Valdes asked about the equipment Littleton was losing. Armstrong said we really aren’t losing any. Valdes also asked about the city code. Steve Kemp said he would be bringing a code amendment forward.

Kyle Schlachter asked Armstrong I t would be responsible to try a stand-alone model. Armstrong said no. Schlachter asked Hooten if the agreement was fiscally responsible and financially sound. Hooten said 9.25 mills is the appropriate amount to pay SM. Schlachter asked Kemp if Littleton would only receive the return of assets with the fire Authority Kemp said yes – once we are in the district it is done The return of assets in only relevant with regard to the Authority.

Carol Fey to Kemp (she asked him to respond with a yes or a no). Were there no performance standards in the contract – he said yes. Will Littleton permanently give up assets? Yes. How many elections can SM hold? 3.

Karina Elrod asked how Littleton would get assurance of a higher level of service? Kemp said the city and SM would develop a plan to meet the standards. And, SM will meet the current standards. Elrod asked if we have a baseline.

Driscoll said they were negotiating from a position of weakness.

Relph addressed the condition of assets being returned to SM saying that the Agreement was written this way because of the political challenges in Littleton. They wanted a commitment. SM is making a big commitment by taking our staff and they want assurance that we will commit. He said that with the approval of the Agreement we are crossing a bridge and can’t come back. The only question for the voters is how we will pay for it. If inclusion does not pass we may have to reassess – they will not hold us hostage.

Brinkman asked about the UR issue – Kemp did not think is was a concern.

Schlachter moved to approve the Pre-Inclusion Agreement and Driscoll seconded.

Peggy Cole said she was not happy being backed up against a wall.

Elrod offered three amendments:

by amending Paragraph 2(d) after the word assets on Line 7 to add the following language: “In the event of termination without the inclusion of the City of Littleton into South Metro, the Parties agree to cooperate in good faith to provide such transfer and distribution of assets as set forth herein so as to allow each Party to individual resume responsibility for providing Fire Rescue Services within their jurisdictions in an efficient and timely manner”. Schlachter seconded and amendment passed 7/0.

amend section “H” for the sentence that reads “The city agrees that any of the former city employees transferred to South Metro may reapply for positions with the city with no loss in seniority or services…” by adding the word “available” after positions. Schlachter seconded and amendment passed 7-0.

by adding a new Paragraph 2(h) and renumbering the existing paragraphs to conform. 2(h) Right of First Refusal for Fire Station Properties. Following the Inclusion, in the event that the Fire Authority or South Metro District, whichever is then owner (“Fire Station Owner”), determines to sell Station 12 or 9, the City shall have first right of refusal to purchase back the Fire Station at fair market value(“Right of First Refusal”). Upon a determination by the Fire Station Owner to sell any of these Fire Stations, it shall provide written notice to the City. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the written notice that it wishes to exercise the Right of First Refusal, or the Fire Station Owner shall have the right to sell the property to any third-party purchaser. Within thirty (30) days of the City providing notice that it wishes to exercise the Right of First Refusal, the fair market value shall be determined by agreement of the City and the Fire Station Owner. If the Parties cannot agree to the fair market value, it shall be determined by an MAI appraiser jointly selected by the Parties. If the Parties cannot agree on the appraiser, they shall each select an appraiser to singularly conduct the appraisal of the property and determine the fair market value. Solely the City shall pay the cost of any appraisal. This Right of First Refusal shall terminate ten (10) years after the execution of this Agreement and shall not apply to any offer to purchase or sale of a Fire Station property more than ten (10) years after the date of this agreement.

Driscoll seconded. Cole asked why would they buy back as opposed to just having the land returned? Kemp said the reason they will have ownership at that time. Cole said if we give them the land why can’t they give it back?

Brinkman said she could not support this amendment – we are only talking about two stations that are fairly strategically located. Her concern was the city would then be holding a piece of land – they what do we do with it?

Schlachter said this would not mandate the purchase but only give Littleton the opportunity. Valdes said he did not like having to buy it at a fair market value.

Amendment passed 5/2 with Brinkman and Cole dissenting.

Fey asked Kemp if the accreditation was a requirement of the contract – he said no. Fey then moved to amend the Agreement by adding current Littleton fire and medical response times as a baseline for measuring South Metro’s performance. The motion died for lack of a second.

Main motion passed 6/1 with Fey dissenting.

b) Ordinance 14-2018 – An ordinance on second reading establishing a Capital Projects Reserve Account should the voters of the City of Littleton approve inclusion into South Metro Fire Rescue for fire and emergency medical services.

This ordinance will only go into effect if inclusion is successful.

The purpose of the ordinance is to create a Capital Improvement account where some of the money that was used to pay for Littleton fire will be diverted into this new account and earmarked for road and street maintenance.

Public Hearing

Carol Brzeczek noted two items on the list of how the money could be spent. The first, administrative costs. She would prefer to see all the money spent on actual maintenance rather than staff expenses. How does the telecommunication piece fit in with road maintenance? She was also concerned about the fact that this council may or may not be sitting if and when the voters approve inclusion. There are no assurances that this ordinance won’t be turned over or ignored by future councils. Elrod asked Kemp how they make the commitment stronger. Kemp said there isn’t a way – you have stated publically that this is what you want to do. There will be a political cost for a future council if undone.

Keith Reister, Public Works, explained that the admin costs are to cover the extra personnel Littleton will have to bring on in order to deliver – we don’t have the staff to do this work.

Relph assured council that the admin and design costs would be kept to a minimum. Elrod moved and Driscoll seconded. Motion passed 7/0.

]]>https://littletonviews.com/2018/05/01/city-council-regular-meeting-4-17-2018-fire-inclusion/feed/0lulaswanzyPre-inclusion Agreement with South Metro Fire – Is It Good For Littleton’s Citizens?https://littletonviews.com/2018/04/15/pre-inclusion-agreement-with-south-metro-fire-is-it-good-for-littletons-citizens/
https://littletonviews.com/2018/04/15/pre-inclusion-agreement-with-south-metro-fire-is-it-good-for-littletons-citizens/#respondMon, 16 Apr 2018 05:58:16 +0000http://littletonviews.com/?p=1694City Council will approve an Agreement to Move to South Metro Fire on Tuesday, April 17, 2018

The Meeting is Your Last and Only Chance to be Heard before the Move to South Metro Fire Goes Final

Tell Council You Want A Fair Deal

Fire protection is a big deal for everyone and we all respect and appreciate the service fire fighters provide for the City of Littleton. When Littleton’s fire partners, Highlands Ranch and the Littleton Fire Protection District, backed out of their Agreement with the City, the City explored other fire and emergency service options. The result of its exploration is the Pre-Inclusion Agreement that will be considered at Tuesday’s April 17, 2018 council meeting.

What Happens if Council Approves The “Pre-Inclusion Agreement”?

Littleton’s Fire Department will be abolished as of January 1, 2019.

The City will contract for fire service with SMFR as of January 1, 2019. And all City fire assets, including stations, will be transferred to SMFR.

The City will pay SMFR the equivalent of 9.25 mills out if its general fund until Littleton citizens vote to increase their property taxes by 9.25 mills. There will be additional costs for the City including any improvements, replacements, repairs and maintenance on buildings in excess of $5,000 annually. Littleton will also have to turn over all collected specific ownership taxes to SMFR.

If the November 2018 election is unsuccessful, additional elections will be held until the voters say yes to the 9.25 mill levy tax increase.

The City of Littleton pays 50% of the election costs as well as 50% of any “public education and election consulting services” for the first three elections. After the third election, the City pays 100% of the election costs per the Agreement. They will ask and ask the voters until we say yes!

If the election is successful in November of 2018, the 9.25 mill levy increase will be effective on January 1, 2020 for tax year 2019.

Everything Goes to SMFR! The Great Littleton Fire Asset Giveaway:

Trucks, Firehouses & Equipment!

The Agreement gives away all fire assets to SMFR and allows SMFR to keep the assets if the City terminates the Agreement. Assets with outstanding debt will be transferred free and clear leaving the citizens of Littleton to continue paying theoutstanding debt. Meanwhile SMFR is specifically allowed to sell the City’s equipment and pocket the cash.

Littleton’s fire stations will be leased, at no cost, to SMFR until the voters approve the 9.25 mill levy increase. Once the voters say yes stations 12 and 19 will become the property of SMFR.

SMFR gets everything if Littleton terminates the Agreement

The Agreement ensures that Littleton will never operate a fire department again no matter what the future holds. If Littleton terminates the Agreement the fire stations will be returned to us, if they still exist in Littleton, but none of the assets required to provide services will be included. The stations will be stripped clean.

What If SMFR delivers unsatisfactory service?

The Agreement does not provide a baseline or service standards. The contract specifically says there is no ability to put standards in the contract despite the fact that other Agreements have performance standards included. Without performance standards, citizens will never know if SMFR is providing service at current levels or at substandard levels or improved levels.

Let your voice be heard on April 17, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers:

Consider speaking at the public hearing scheduled at 6:30pm on April 17 in Council Chambers at City Center, 2255 W. Berry Avenue. The time of the meeting may change. Check www.littletongov.orgfor any updates to the meeting time. E-mails may also be submitted to Council as part of the official record, but only if your e-mails arrive before 4:00 on Tuesday, April 17. Citizens may also sign the public hearing roster in council chambers and indicate their position without having to speak.

Gary Mitchell and Meredith Dang from Kendig Keast talked about what they will do to help Littleton with the “visioning” to Complan and Code update. They will work with staff and others on a timeline and activities including a Speaker Series. They will go to where the people are and they will constantly be looking to see whom they have not reached. They have read lots of documents and are familiar with the 2014 attempt at a Complan. It is time to step back and see what has changed. How you put words on a page is important. Example – if a safe community is the goal it may mean putting up a secure perimeter around the city to stay safe, or it could mean to some that they no longer want community events as it brings in the wrong element. People come from all different perspectives.

Carol Fey said the word vision should be defined. Peggy Cole asked how it is possible to ensure economic sustainability when things go in cycles.

Kendig Keast will try different approaches to reach different audiences. Jerry Valdes said they have done a lot and have not gotten “there” yet. Mitchell said it is usually not the document that changes but the players in the process. Sometimes rapid growth causes issues.

Karina Elrod asked how they would work through a plan that might not be economically sustainable. Choices might be different if the economics were part of the decisions. She said there’s been push back with some of the pervious documents – people said that is not what I said and she does not want to get to the end of this process and have people say that is not what I said.

Mitchell said they would talk about the needs and wants – the needs first. They will ask what is just right, what needs work and what do we wish we had. Dang said they looked at Golden’s plan and they are updating – they could not afford the original vision and they are going back and discussing what they can afford. Mitchell described a process where colors were used to identify what gets put aside (reds), are they holding up the items identified as yellows and greens?

There will be reports from Kendig Keast along the way to update council on progress. Debbie Brinkman asked what is the role of Planning Commission and Mitchell said they are the ones to take the plan forward – they are the keepers of the document.

Mark Relph said Kendig Keast’s experience in community engagement is broad and this is all about the public process – they have very unique talents. They are known for their approach to Community Character and they have done a lot of work nation wide.

b) ID# 18-121 Homeless Impact Along the South Platte River – Urban Camping and its impact on our drainages SSPRD Littleton Homeless Presentation

A Sgt from the Englewood Police Department spoke about their approach to the homeless along the river. Homelessness is becoming more and more evident along the river. There are areas where it is hard to detect the “urban camps” that have cropped up. Their goal is not to arrest but to connect the homeless with community resources that can assist. However there are many homeless that are happy with their lifestyle. Englewood teamed up with Urban Drainage and they evicted the urban campers in order for agencies to go in to restore the area. The pictures that were shown were eye openers – the amount of trash, bio hazardous items, and stuff (tents, propane tanks, bicycles (there was a “bicycle repair shop” in one of the camps), human waste, and just plain junk). There were 21 camps. They shut them down for about 2 weeks while they removed massive amounts of debris.

There’s an increase in calls for service in these areas. There’s environmental degradation of the vegetation and erosion of the soil that ends up in the river as well as other things that reduce the water quality. Some of the things they are doing to prevent further damage to the river are:

Creative channel and trail design

Vegetation management to improve the flow and increase the sight distance providing more visibility to the area

Increase law enforcement and Ranger presence

Policy and Ordinance Changes

Local Partnerships to enhance and increase operations and maintenance

Local Partnerships to increase access to services

Address root causes via local policies

Andy Jennings, a South Suburban Ranger, says they do welfare checks and make sure the rules and regulations are known.

Doug Stephens, Littleton’s Police Chief, said the police and rangers can’t solve the problems – there are many homeless that do not want help.

Some reasons for the increase in homeless are:

Marijuana

Can’t afford rent

Just nowhere to go

Runaways, alcohol and drug abuse

Another issue is when the areas are cleaned up the possessions having to be stored. Stephens said Denver is renting warehouses to store for a period of time what they think someone might think is valuable creating a lot of expense and logistics.

c) ID# 18-126 Discussion on concept rules for quasi-judicial proceedings by City Council, Boards, and Commissions

City Attorney, Steve Kemp, explained that the quasi-judicial boards are acting as a judge in their decisions. The City Code has one section dedicated to quasi-judicial proceedings but there are no rules. This is an attempt at providing the necessary rules. He addressed:

Members can only consider the “record” (what was heard in the public hearing)

The parties are the applicant and the staff; the public has no standing but the they can weigh the credibility of their testimony

No ex-parte communication; the merits of the case cannot be discussed outside of the public hearing. If a member receives a text message they should transcribe it and forward to the city clerk for distribution to the whole body.

All the rules for quasi-judicial come into play once an application has been filed. Staff will alert members when that occurs.

Brinkman said some cities swear in the applicants, staff and citizens prior to a hearing and asked council if they would like to do the same. Kemp said it was not required but he thought it would make people think about what they will say.

Kyle Schlachter favored the idea, Elrod did not, Valdes did not and Fey was OK with the idea. Not sure with Cole said – couldn’t hear her and she can’t be heard on the video.

Linda Knufinkepresented a comparison of the cost between South Metro and Littleton Fire based on a cost per call. She used the CAFR info from each organization to make her comparisons. The data shows that South Metro’s cost per call is $5,857.29 and Littleton’s cost per call is $1,777.47. She did not see unifying with South Metro as a savings for the citizens of Littleton. (Her Power Point is available by clicking on this link L Knufinke’s PP Fire Merger v3

As Knufinke was returning to her seat mayor Brinkman called her numbers into question. You be the judge as to whether Knufinke’s numbers are accurate or not.

Regular attendees of council meetings also wondered why Brinkman decided to respond. According to her rules it is a violation of the Open Meetings Law for her or any member of council to respond to a citizen during the comment portion of the meeting.

Paul Bingham told the council that the agreement with South Metro Fire was one-sided with the City of Littleton doing all the paying and giving. It gives the buildings, the land and the equipment to South Metro and the city will not get their equipment back. Littleton is required to pay for an environmental assessment on stations that are no located within the city limits and will be required to pay for any remediation for Station 16 that is outside the city. He asked council to table the agreement, as it needs work.

Gloria Shone said she had concerns with the merger – it is a tax increase. If the voters reject the November ballot question an election will be held again at our expense. Elections could be held in polling places; most of which will be fire stations, which could be intimidating. The termination agreement is a sham – Littleton will not be able to get their equipment back. The Agreement does not have any performance standards so there is no right for Littleton to terminate the Agreement if our expectations of service are not met.

Patrick Fitzgerald said he was addressing his comments to the voters. He did not think city council listened to the citizens. He thought council acted illegally by voting in a study session to negotiate with South Metro Fire and eliminate all other options. Council decided with one vote to give away the city owned fire department. Costs for fire will double with no improvement in services. It is mere theater and a betrayal of citizens that this is a done deal. Three of the four newly elected council members couldn’t wait to give the fire union what they paid for and we will never know how much illegal campaigning was done. Citizens, please speak to council and show up in two weeks to let your thoughts be known.

Jeanie Erickson said she was watching council when the Nex Gen Advisory group was discussed and it sparked her interest. This would be a group of 17 to 34 year olds appointed by council. There were four dissenters among council members yet the mayor decided to move forward with a breakfast with the Nex Gen’ers. Erickson said no one should have more access to the council than anyone else. She asked council to return the four minutes for Citizen Comments and the scheduled ten minutes on the agenda. Phil Cernanec removed these options arbitrarily and the 17 to 34 year olds to speak to council could use it. She encouraged everyone to get involved – there are lots of ways to be involved. Segregating by age groups is not a good idea.

Don Bruns had a few questions protection. His statement is included in full.

It states Council’s direction is that, “(1) the inclusion in SMFR will maintain about the Pre Inclusion Agreement for firecurrent levels of service including emergency medical services.” However, the analysis only states “any additional costs incurred by the citizens should result in an improved level of service…” Before considering approval of this resolution, rather than simply stating “should,” could it be determined whether levels of service will or will not be maintained—both with additional tax increases and without them?

It also states Council directed, “(2) minimize disruption to citizens and employees.” But the analysis sidesteps this requirement and begs asking a two-fold question: First, why would Council want only to minimize disruption to citizens; and why in the first place would the proposed agreement have to disrupt service anyhow?

Reviewing the basis for this agreement, the analyses evidently mix proverbial “apples and oranges by putting street maintenance and fire/emergency services in the same basket. Certainly both matters are part of the city’s overall budget considerations. But why are they combined here? Being functionally unrelated, the admixture of funding for both as supportive rationale gives the distinct impression that true costs of the proposed agreement are being hidden. It’s doubtful that’s what was intended.

The city’s finance director is very accomplished. But to ordinary citizens, the combined discussion of Mill Levy rates and dollars involving both matters is unintelligible. It gives the appearance that street maintenance is a significant reason for pursuing the SMFR agreement, however unlikely that may be. While the rising costs of street maintenance may well result from unrelenting continued approval increasingly urbanized growth and development, certainly they have nothing to do with fire and emergency service costs.

How then can citizens be expected to believe they are being dealt a straight deck of cards? Can the proposal for inclusion of fire services with SMFR not stand on its own two feet? Where is the compelling rational for avoiding independent analysis of this proposal’s costs?

My intent is to disparage no one. But from the first time I saw the two issues presented together, the true costs associated with each of these needs appeared clouded and unclear. I hope this helps explain why at least some of us might be suspicious.

David Eberhardt– said he was new to Littleton and he just voted for the first time in Littleton and he has been reading and learning about where the funding had come from for some of the council candidates and it was a conflict of interest for those that were funded by the union and that bothers him. He read David Gilbert’s article that this would cost him $10 more a month and he is not convinced it will be any different. He did not see a citizen benefit and his interests were not being represented by council. He asked the council to back off and consider those that live here. It is not right for the city to give away equipment that the citizens will continue to make payments on.

Pam Chadbourne said she was proud of the citizens that spoke – they represent the quality of the citizens in Littleton. She told them they needed to listen and they did not have what they needed to make their decision. She asked them to table their action. Past councils have demanded bids for $60,000 contracts – please ask for more data.

On the Events Ordinance – she expressed concern about demonstrations. Chadbourne also agreed with Erickson 100% – restore the four minutes and ten minutes on the agenda. She noted that it was the 50thanniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King.

Carol Brzeczek made several points about the Pre-inclusion Agreement with South Metro Fire.

The agreement was one-sided favoring South Metro

If council had not compared the city’s agreement with the agreements with Highlands Ranch and Littleton Fire Protection District they needed to do so as there are inequities.

If council were sincere in offsetting the new tax burden created by going to South Metro they would reduce our property tax mill levy to 0 rather than 2 mills.

The agreement states council is willing to go back to the voters three times or more for approval when council’s own standard is that once a vote is taken the body will support the action and move on regardless of their personal views.Why doesn’t council extend that same expectation – if the voters say No,accept their decision and move on rather than asking them again and again to raise their taxes by 9.25 mills.

If the City terminates the Agreement with South Metro all of the city’s fire assets will be forfeited to South Metro – what sense does that make?

What risks are there for the city if South Metro fails to meet the standards called out in our contract with Lockheed Martin?She asked the council if they had seen an amendment to the contract with Lockheed.

We have been told that going with South Metro will be cheaper – an economy of scale yet that is just not true – going with South Metro is a tax increase.

Frank Atwood talked about special interests and told council that they are beholden to the citizens and not their donors. He thought Knufinke’s graphs were wonderfully explicit and damning.

Martin Bolt was questioning mayor Brinkman’s comment that council would be violating the open meetings law if council were to respond to citizens during the comment portion of the meeting. He, in all his experience with city government, had never seen a council sued because they responded to a citizen. He told council that by the time they get to a critical vote it is too late for citizens to influence the decision. Council has only heard one side of the story. He did not like the increase in taxes and asked the council to stop this now.

Consent Agenda Items

a) Ordinance 13-2018 – An ordinance on first reading regarding the proposed Pre-Inclusion Agreement with South Metro Fire Rescue for fire and emergency medical services commencing 1/1/2019– pulled by Cole

b) Ordinance 14-2018 – An ordinance on first reading establishing a Capital Projects Reserve Account should the voters of the City of Littleton approve inclusion into South Metro Fire Rescue for fire and emergency medical services.– pulled by Fey

c) Resolution 21-2018 – A resolution supporting an application by the city on behalf of Littleton Public Schools for an Arapahoe County Open Space grant for playground improvements at Field Elementary School

g) ID# 18-122 – Motion to appoint Channing O’Dell to the board of directors of the Highline Business Improvement District

Items A and B were pulled. Motion to approve c, d, e, f and g was approved 6/0.

A – An ordinance on first reading regarding the proposed Pre-Inclusion Agreement with South Metro Fire Rescue for fire and emergency medical services commencing 1/1/2019. Peggy Colepulled and noted a minor error in the date. Attorney Kemp had already noticed and would make the correction. Jerry Valdesasked the attorney about the $5,000 the city will pay. Kemp said normally on the first reading, the purpose was to direct the publication and set the public hearing and he would prefer to respond to Valdes’ question in an email. Valdessaid he wanted the answer now – in the past we have gotten answers at this time. Kemp said the reason for the $5,000 – it is a standard designation of a capital expense. Valdesasked if the Agreement is passed why would we want to give up our real estate – can’t we have a 20 year lease. Kemp said if inclusion passes it is done. Valdesasked if Littleton needed to give up our real estate –why couldn’t we lease to them? Kemp said fire stations are specialized. This is a South Metro model and it is consistent with protecting the citizens. We discussed a number of options and this is the one that I recommend for the long-term interest of Littleton from a legal standpoint.

Brinkman told council that is they have additional questions to submit them to the staff. Mark Relph said that would allow staff to fine tune their presentation for the public hearing.

Carol Fey said there are so many big problems with this agreement that puts Littleton on the short end. Brinkmantold Feythis was not the time for her to do this. Feysaid she had the floor and Brinkmancalled her out. Carol Fey made a motion to table the item to a study session and straighten out some of the problems at the next study session on 4/10. Peggy Cole seconded. Motion failed 2/4 with Cole and Fey approving.The main motion to approve on first reading approved 5/1 with Fey dissenting.

B – An ordinance on first reading establishing a Capital Projects Reserve Account should the voters of the City of Littleton approve inclusion into South Metro Fire Rescue for fire and emergency medical services. Motion made to approve – passed 6/0.

Adjournment

Study Session

Discussion on proposed special events ordinance

Kemp informed the council that Littleton is seeing an increase in the number of special events and the city needs a way to manage them. The current code only provides for circuses and carnivals and even though staff has a way to handle special events it is not in the city’s code and should be.

Kathy Novak talked to the council about how to build a relationship. She asked the council to write down their expectations of council.

Jerry Valdes – be prepared – read and understand the package of material for each meeting. Ask questions.

Karina Elrod – ask questions for clarity sake not to form an opinion. And ask questions as early as possible. Listen to understand the other person.

Debbie Brinkman – be professional.

Valdes – respect each other. Brinkman said the “elected” may not recognize the depth of change once elected and it is a challenge – you are always on when you deal with the community, staff and each other.

Elrod – no personal attacks

Peggy Cole – treat people how you want to be treated.

Carol Fey – hear each other out and don’t take more than your share of time talking.

Cole – do not assume meaning or motives

Mark Relph – don’t surprise each other – give each other heads up. Brinkman said there are effective ways to sabotage each other and it is a disservice to staff and the community. It is never right and always wrong to do that.

Kyle Schlachter – keep an open mind, cooperate and be willing to compromise.

Cole – try to get the best outcome

Valdes – be flexible

Pat Driscoll – no stabbing each other behind their backs.

Brinkman – support each other – doesn’t mean that you agree but honor the process and their decisions.

Elrod – after a decision is made we have to support the overall decision of city council no matter how you voted.

Novak said it was important to talk about that – what if four prevailed and you feel really strong that it wasn’t the correct action – does it mean you can’t talk about it – how do you want to approach this situation?

Elrod – allow you to take your position but continue to move forward but what can I offer to minimize the risks as I see it and make the outcome better.

Brinkman said this was one of the hardest things to do – the marijuana issue is an important issue and Brinkman said she has a little disagreement with Elrod’s statement about working to improve the outcome.

Cole said the intent is not to undermine.

Relph mentioned the staff perspective – when council goes against the staff recommendation they have to do their best to support the body and staff has to wrestle with that. In their debriefing they always ask why.

Elrod – provide context for the base of your concerns

Carol Fey – forthrightfullness, honesty and transparency

Relph – get your questions to staff in advance of the meeting and staff will get the response to all council members.

Steve Kemp, city attorney, said some questions are straightforward but sometimes the questions require him to sit and give it some thought. If you have questions come see him.

Brinkman, as mayor, asked council members that if they want to amend an agenda item or change the agenda to let her know in advance.

Relph said staff could be helpful to council members that want to make a detailed amendment to an ordinance – they are there to help.

Cole suggested that they need to read with a critical eye and look for the weaknesses and ambiguity.

Brinkman – support and respect staff

Novak – regarding staff – public praise and private criticism

Schlachter – don’t be afraid to think out of the box

Brinkman – have honest conversations when there are differences – enjoy the work

Cole – be good fiduciaries of the people’s money

Brinkman – follow our rules

Cole – have a sense of humor

At this point Driscoll said that they voted in study sessions and Novak said they couldn’t vote at study sessions. Kemp said they take a consensus about the direction they will take.

Novak asked them to find the big issues in the list of expectations they just completed.

Brinkman – The section on Confidential Information needs to be clearer and more specific. The section of Public Statements – what does it mean and what can you say? The last sentence in VII Paragraph A – the guide is very restrictive

Cole wanted the difference in quasi-judicial to be clarified

Brinkman – the role of liaison needs a better definition

Fey wanted the word support (as in supporting decisions of the council even if you did not vote in favor) to be substituted with another word. Brinkman thought the word should be support – she thought the word accept means OK, I lost. Council shouldn’t have to accept but they need to support the decision of the body.

Elrod says it now says support the decision but we said we support the decision of the body and the process. Valdes said it was ok with him the way it was written. Fey said retail marijuana was voted against – am I required to say I support it?

Kemp mentioned public censure and public reprimand – Novak asked if they needed something to cover that. Brinkman said it was a “sticky icky” and tough.

Brinkman brought up the district meetings and what should the protocols be. It is not a financial responsibility of the city but a lot of cities do give each council member a $500 stipend to spend as they see fit each year giving everyone the same opportunities to connect with the citizens. Kemp said during the election cycle they should not be allowed to use city money – six months prior to the election is a good rule. Cole did not favor providing a stipend. Valdes suggested that the meetings be written up in the Littleton Report – just a generic notice. Kemp said that could still be a problem. Elrod asked why they are doing this. We are trying to solve getting input and having conversations. We need to come up with a communication strategy. Tie it back to our priorities about building collaborative relationships.

Schlachter thought a stipend would be needed. Novak reminded them that staff time needed to be included in the discussion.

Fey is the only council member that has had recent experience and she spent $300 of her own money to mail postcards to her district. Her meeting was a success and the next one will be April 21st at the museum.

Schlachter said he supported the stipend and that $500 was a very small amount of money. Fey asked if the meetings could be announced in the Littleton Report and Relph said it was up tot hem. Valdes said, in response to Schlachter, it is not very much money as long as we are not spending your own money but spending the taxpayer’s money.

Brinkman said she thought when Fey mentioned that she spent her own money to notify her district of her meeting that it was a message to the community. She did not want to overthink this and if there wasn’t any interest they would move on.

b) ID# 18-109 Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee

Relph said Schlachter came to him asking about how to involve the younger people in Littleton. The subject was researched and by-laws were drafted if council has an interest to go forward.

Schlachter said it started a year or two ago with Bill Hopping. Then two young men came to him with the desire to form a young adult group. They talked about different ways to form an advisory group that would bring ideas to council and council could go to them for input. We hear from the older, retired crowd…….

Driscoll thought it was a great idea and going in the right direction. He questioned if there was an issue with this having an age requirement.

Kemp said it could be seen both ways.

Valdes said they do have an opportunity to provide input – everyone has the opportunity anytime. When we had board and commission interviews they could come and interview. He was hesitant to add another group – it will take staff time. He encouraged people to get involved but government doesn’t need to be the solution. There are other ways. He thought this was a group that wanted to be coddled in order to get involved. Attendance is dismal and they have better things to spend their time on.

Elrod liked the opportunity to get the broader community engaged – Tuesdays at 6:30 does not always work. They need to find a way to get more people involved and it goes beyond the 18 to 34 age group. She said they need to find a way to make engagement accessible but she was not in favor of this.

Fey supported Elrod’s comments and thought there was an element of age discrimination. Kemp said it would be permissible.

Fey said there are often great expectations of an advisory group. She went on line and looked at minutes of a similar group and they were concerned about the same things they talk about – affordable housing and transportation. Trying to address a special group could be a problem.

Driscoll said people want to be involved and it is not so much about them telling us how it will be but have we addressed their issues. He was still in support.

Cole said she did not support but does support more out reach. She has been invited to several youth organizations and there are opportunities to speak to students in government classes.

Schlachter said he did not think it was coddling but proactive to set up a forum to listen to a group. Brinkman said there was a shortage of staff time – they are maxed out. She appreciated Schlachter’s response to the young men. We are seeing a demographic shift – the older people don’t live forever!

Even though there were four opposing such a group, Brinkman suggested that Schlachter talk to the movers and shakers and they have a council breakfast with them to hear what they want.

John Watson thanked council for the formation of the Columbine Square Advisory Group. He spoke to what he believes to be an inadequacy in Littleton’s impact fees. He compared Littleton’s impact fees to Brighton, Colorado Springs, Boulder, and Aurora. Littleton’s total impact fees are $3,697 as compared to Longmont’s $13,000, Boulder’s $8,500 and Colorado Springs’ $6,000 to $7,000. He said he has a deaf ear when he hears the need for road improvements when we need to collect more in impact fees.

Kent Bagley thanked the council for the work they are doing. He thanked Jerry Valdes for his vote to keep the one remaining urban renewal plan – Columbine Square.

Pam Chadbourne commented on the Mineral Framework that was on the Consent Agenda saying it was not much of a framework but more of a guide.

Consent Agenda Items

a) Resolution 18-2018 – A resolution requesting coverage under the FPPA Defined Benefit System for police officers for the City of Littleton

b) Resolution 19-2018 – Keep It Colorado_FAQs

A motion to approve the cancelation of the June 19, 2018 and July 3, 2018 regular city council meetings

c) ID# 18-105 – A motion to approve the cancelation of the June 19, 2018 and July 3, 2018 regular city council meetings
d) Resolution 20-2018 – A resolution regarding adoption of the Mineral Station Area Framework

e) ID#18-100 – Approval of the March 6, 2018 regular meeting minutes

onsent agenda items passed 7/0. Ordinances on Second Reading and Public Hearing

a) Ordinance 07-2018 – An ordinance on second reading amending Ordinance No. 23, series of 2017, known as the Annual Appropriation Bill.Pat Driscoll moved to approve, Peggy Cole seconded and motion passed 7/0.

b) Ordinance 08-2018 – An ordinance on second reading amending the 2018 Littleton Sewer Utility Enterprise budget – Karina Elrod moved to approve, either Pat Driscoll or Peggy Cole seconded (spoke at the same time and I do not know who got credited with the second). Motion passed 7/0.

d) Ordinance 10-2018 – An ordinance on second reading amending title 6, chapter 1 of the municipal code to provide for the safety and protection of wildlife – This ordinance does not impact the treatment of wildlife on private property. Primary enforcement of the ordinance will fall on South Suburban Park Rangers.

Public Hearing –

Don Bruns said he was grateful that the ordinance was limited to just the parks. He was concerned about the continued erosion of the wildlife habitat with the urbanization of the city. He quoted Walt Disney, “The more you like yourself, the less you are like anyone else, which makes you unique.” There are lots of copies – we don’t have to lose what makes Littleton special – Littleton is an original.

Pam Chadbourne was sorry that the ordinance had been weakened. She has seen a decline in wildlife where she lives due to the development upstream. There is nothing in our codes or plans that considers the impact of development on wildlife. She thought there should be a requirement to include the impact of development on wildlife.

Kyle Schlachter moved to approve with Driscoll seconding. Cole moved to amend the motion by removing the word “training” from the ordinance with Driscoll seconding. Attorney Kemp said that works. Amendment passed 7/0. Schlachter moved to amend the motion to add the words “but not limited to” with regard to hazing techniques and Valdes seconded. That amendment passed 7/0.

Carol Fey said the devil is in the details and referred to the penalty cited in the Ordinance as one that refers to contraband – the sale of unlawful controlled substances etc. Attorney said it was used in order to provide guidance to the District Court. Main motion passed 6/1 with Fey dissenting.

Reports

Carol Fey is holding a District 3 meeting on April 21, 9:30 at the Littleton museum.

]]>https://littletonviews.com/2018/04/01/city-council-regular-meeting-20-march-2018-wildlife-ordinance/feed/0lulaswanzyWant to Know How Much More You Will Pay For Fire with South Metrohttps://littletonviews.com/2018/02/06/want-to-know-how-much-more-you-will-pay-for-fire-with-south-metro/
https://littletonviews.com/2018/02/06/want-to-know-how-much-more-you-will-pay-for-fire-with-south-metro/#respondWed, 07 Feb 2018 00:37:18 +0000http://littletonviews.com/?p=1672City Council directed staff to negotiate for Littleton to be included within the South Metro Fire District. This will cause Littleton residents to pay more for fire and EMS protection than we are currently paying. Below are some “calculators” that you can use to see what difference it will make on your property tax liability. Just plug in your number into the blue box and the new rate will appear. Make sure you use the correct chart – there are two – residential and commercial.

We do not know how much the unification will cost us and won’t until the council votes. Once the council votes the question will have to go to the taxpayers as this will be a tax increase under TABOR.

At the 3 February workshop, city council did discuss the possibility of reducing our current 6.662 mill levy to 2 mills creating a credit to offset some of the extra charge of going to South Metro. Currently, we pay approximately $7,100,000 – crediting back some of that cost through a mill levy reduction equivalent to $4,000,000 in the form of a credit would leave $3,100,000 on the table for council to spend. They also talked about earmarking their $3,100,000 in “savings” to be spent on street maintenance.* If council decides they want to reduce our mill levy to help us pay for the increase in fire protection just how much they are willing to reduce it remains to be seen. Who knows, maybe they will decide to credit the taxpayers 100% for what we are currently providing in taxes to pay for fire protection. It is a policy question that council will decide.

*Not sure this can be done – council mandating how future council’s appropriate funds. Apparently the city attorney has a way around this difficulty.

The meeting opened with remarks from Debbie Brinkman. There’s a perception that we are not open. Leadership drives the conversation and it becomes a very narrow conversation. We need to have a process for communication – when you have polarity you become myopic and fail to see the big picture. For instance on fire – has it been decided or is there a need for a broader conversation.

Each council member was asked to provide an expectation of the workshop

Carol Fey Positive Energy

Karina Elrod Action Oriented

Jerry Valdes Completion

Debbie Brinkman Action, Completion and Policy Direction

Pat Driscoll Transparency, Great Communication and Resolution

Peggy Cole Doables that all are committed to

Kyle Schlachter Forward thinking and open mindedness

They mentioned some of the past accomplishments

The successful TABOR election

Voice of the Community – they need to think differently how they engage the citizens

Townhall – it was fun

Downtown Design Guidelines

Belleview Corridor

Long term capital funding – a deep challenge. Now that the TABOR question has been passed we need to focus on the long-term issue of funding the capital needs. This is the most central issue facing us….we have a financial crisis said Mark Relph.

COMPLAN

Jocelyn Mills then started to address the COMPLAN process. She began by passing out all the old plans – they filled a box. The point she was making was there are lots and lots of plans that were created by different departments but there really was no way to connect the dots. They want to be more cohesive. She asked why should they pursue a vision and Complan and illustrated another community that had four citizen initiatives and the question was asked how do we turn this around. The community created a vision and that process turned the community around.

Why do this – there’s new leadership on council, the need exists, lots of development going on in Littleton now and they have a chance to start an integrated multi-year process.

Mark Relph, city manager, said if they want to be successful they need a public process up front. You cannot short cut the public process and if you don’t do it well you will do battle. We do not have an adopted community vision – that’s where we fail. Kelli Narde, director of communication, spoke about the process, under Debbie Brinkman’s leadership, that was a visioning process that produced a large visual hanging in the council chamber but it was not a public process at all.

Jerry Valdes said they paid a lot of money for a pretty piece of artwork.

Mills continued, if we had had a community process to connect back to we would know where we are going and it would transcend the overlap of councils.

One of the main points she made was the fact that Littleton does not have a transportation plan which would frame economic development, financial sustainability, how communities interact and get around. Her timeline in the process showed 9 months to collect the public input. Pat Driscoll asked her how she came up with nine months – he thought is was a long time. Relph said it took Golden two years. Driscoll then asked what percentage of the community they were looking for in the way of participation. Relph said this was not just an open house style of meeting – it is more about having opportunities – going to specific areas and engaging with citizens. Narde said the consultant will set up the process and strategies and we have lots of tools to implement the consultant’s plan. This is planned for a March start.

Keith Reester, public works director, displayed a chart that showed all the plans that were necessary to support the Community’s Vision through a Complan.

*Transportation & Utility

Public Safety

Economic Development

*Housing & Neighborhoods

Open Space/Parks & Rec

*Future Land Use/Zoning

*Facilities & Public Spaces

*Cultural & Community

*The asterisks denote plans that do not exist

Peggy Cole asked if their decision to start this process needs formal approval.

Financial Sustainability

Relph said there was a crisis in the Capital Improvement Fund. Tiffany Hooten, director of finance provided council with a presentation that included fire unification.

Staff has identified $93 million in unfunded capital costs, which includes things like curb and gutter, fleet maintenance throughout the city; technology advances, building maintenance etc. There have been some one-time monies – Water Fund, Denver Water Payment that have helped but the money is running out. It will take $200 million for Santa Fe alone and we will be expected to contribute 20%. The other major corridors in Littleton are not included in that number. There hasn’t been a good job in the past of planning the capital needs so they are implementing a five year fiscally constrained capital plan.

Fire

Chief Armstrong presented, once again, his reasons for unifying the fire department with South Metro.

He said Highlands Ranch would be going to their voters for their approval to unify and tax themselves to do so. Littleton would have to do the same but if the voters said no then the city has to pay the equivalent of 9.25 mills and that will impact the General Fund – it will come out of the operations or reserves budgets and is not practical. Hooten warned that they did not want to spend down their reserves too much as it would jeopardize their bond rating.

Council was shown a graph that depicted them relinquishing 4.662 mills of the 6.662 mills in property tax that the city collects. The 4.662 mills are equivalent to $4,000,000 and would be used to defray the cost of going to South Metro for the citizens. That would leave 2 mills or $3,100,000 in “savings” for the city (money they no longer would have to spend on fire) that could be used for other things. This scenario showed the impact to the owner of a $370,000 home to be an additional $120 per year. They had not done the work to show the impact on a commercial property owner whose property is assessed at 3xs the rate of residential thus a much bigger impact.

Karina Elrod asked about the question for the voters – would there be two questions or a single question. She was told one question.

The next discussion was about a communication strategy to convince the voters to support the ballot question. They will use their web page and other means available and run the campaign similar to the TABOR question just passed by the voters. They have from March to November to do this.

Long Term Financial Sustainability

Hooten presented three options to raise more revenue for the City.

Increase sales tax – Littleton currently collects about $83,000,000 in sales tax annually. An increase of .25% will net $2.9 million, an increase of .5% will net $5.8 million and an increase of .75% will net $8.7 million. The extra sales tax raised could be limited to be used for capital projects.

Hotel Tax – we have four hotels that currently charge 3% tax. Adding an additional 3% would conservatively net $400,000 per year.

Bond Measure – This money could target specific projects. When asked how much staff responded $180,000,000. A bond measure would have to be backed by an increase in taxes to pay the debt.

Elrod said she was cautious to do sales tax and a bond measure now but the hotel tax would be easier to do. It was pointed out that the $400,000 was not going to solve their problems.

Cole mentioned raising the taxes on marijuana. Kyle Schlachter thought they needed to see what the tax rate for hotels and marijuana were in surrounding cities.

Brinkman said we need the sales tax increase but when do we go to the voters? She wanted to know what the ballot was going to look like.

City Council Relationships

Brinkman talked about how she attended the Metro Mayor’s meetings and, at times, has to vote and she votes for the city even though the council has not voted on the issue. Elrod, who is the liaison to DRCOG, said they can’t do everything individually and asked how they divide and conquer and get the right person to the right meetings.

Carol Fey said it starts with council and she strongly suggested that the divisive language stop. She referred to page 13 of their document that stated:

“Citizens that are engaging are people that are complaining. Creates a defensive environment. Council needs to rise above it and set an example. Need to show the council is working together to move the city forward. Council behavior needs to model what is expected in the environment. It would be a failure if this council does not change this. Sunshine group lost because of the negative campaigning. As a city and society, don’t want the negativity. Need to change our council culture.”

What this is saying is that council does not want to hear from those that complain. We won’t succeed in hearing the citizen’s vision if we think citizens speaking is complaining. She said she was blown away that Sunshine and the campaign was still important. Someone in the group made this statement and it tells us where we are and who we are. Sunshine didn’t lose by very much. The margins were small and you can’t write of a segment of the population. Brinkman won by 167 – not a land slide. In the newspaper it referred to a mandate yet the difference between Kyle and Doug was 108 votes and 216 was the difference between Doug and Karina. If, as a council, there’s a group of citizens that we don’t want to listen to because they were severely trounced and we march forward – that would be the wrong assumption to make. I see people shutting down but if I didn’t bring this up the barriers will continue. I am associated with Sunshine. What is written hear means that at least one person in the group believes that Sunshine lost – but I didn’t loose. I won. And if we believe this we believe in an untruth. I met with Kent Bagley and he told me I needed to lose the connection with Sunshine, as it will only hurt me forever – that I couldn’t function as a member of this council. Wow! The people who came to this meeting today are primarily Sunshine. They are here, not because they are negative, but because they care about Littleton and when they come to council and speak they come because they care. They have 3 minutes at council – Peggy keeps telling us to be positive but there’s no time to be positive. Fey asked council to find a way to see her differently. She was not negative – she went to Sunshine when her council rep refused to help her.

Brinkman said she wanted this discussion over. Fey said “but it isn’t”…..look at page 13. Brinkman did not appreciate it being brought up how little some members of council won by. The majority wins and it is a disservice to all who have served to bring up the numbers. The vote is over – we need to work together. Brinkman thought it was important to share the information that each of the council members shared with the facilitator during their one on one conversations. She agreed that the 3 minutes in front of council was difficult and there are other ways to have better conversations with council – we are all available. Then Brinkman said she did not like using citizen’s names in their conversations.

Changing the subject Brinkman mentioned a phone call she received from Jocelyn Mills about a new developer for Columbine Square – Frank – who also developed Littleton Village. He is an awesome guy.

Relph said leadership is the key and the challenge in front of them is an opportunity to think of community engagement differently.

Driscoll said he attended a Sunshine meeting and he did not think Doug Clark told both sides of the story and his challenge to them and Sunshine was to get the facts straight.

Accountability

What does council need from Mark Relph?

Brinkman – honesty about what’s not clear or when there is over reach. She needs it in the moment and not two weeks later.

Driscoll – nothing. Staff is doing a fantastic job making his job easy. He takes the staff reports to heart.

Valdes – wants to get things done.

Fey – more reality checks and to be outspoken – never hesitate to point out reality.

Elrod – yes to all above. Reality checks are important. Foster measureable actions and what we get out of the action.

Brinkman – wants the pros and cons in the staff reports and ask council when you need something – there’s a lot of work ahead.

What does Mark need from council?

The Pros and Cons – he recognized that they haven’t been good about that – it is a culture change for staff.

The current practice is to have agenda item questions in advance by Monday morning but that doesn’t always happen. Staff wants council to be successful and they need time to be prepared for the meeting.

If after a meeting your expectations were not met – call him – do not do it from the dais

Wants to meet with each of them once per month

He will need to realign the organization to accomplish the workload in front of them. He wants to create a strategic plan for the organization.

He has no goals set forth for his appraisal – he needs them to lay the groundwork for his evaluation.

Schlachter told Relph to think outside of the box to move forward. Relph responded that he is an engineer and likes to minimize the risks. He has been part of some very innovative work and it is fantastic but he has to know the plan and details.

Next Steps

Randy Young, deputy city manager, said they just got the first draft of the SM contract. There’s not a whole lot to negotiate. There are operational agreements but that will be a separate piece. Can’t go way outside the boundaries of the other three agreements SM has made with the other three fire departments that recently unified with them.

Steve Kemp, city attorney, said the timeline has moved up – both first and second readings need to be completed in April.